That is considered one of a collection of articles the place I’ve been mythbusting issues folks “know” concerning the Buddha. These myths embody the supposed information that he was a prince, that he was born a Hindu, and that he left house after seeing “4 sights.”
Such factoids are current in virtually each guide guide concerning the Buddha and Buddhism. But if we glance with a bit historic consciousness at our earliest sources — the scriptures — we see that none of these items is true.
On this article I wish to mythbust one thing else that everybody thinks they know, which is the Buddha’s private title having been “Siddhartha” (Siddhattha in Pāli). The proof we have now signifies that it wasn’t.
The quick story is that the title Siddhartha isn’t discovered within the early scriptures, and is a reputation given to the Buddha after his demise. For those who’re within the lengthy story, proceed studying…
Siddhartha was an epithet, not a reputation
Siddhartha (Siddhattha in Pali) means “one who has achieved (siddha) his goals (attha).”
In not one of the scriptural discourses — the suttas — is the Buddha known as Siddhartha. This title is just present in a couple of very late texts, such because the Apadāna, the Buddhavaṁsa, and the Milindapañha, which post-date the Buddha’s demise.
Slightly than being a private title, Siddhattha is an epithet, which is “an adjective or phrase expressing a top quality or attribute considered attribute of the individual or factor talked about.”
Individuals utilized many epithets to the Buddha, together with Sugata (the one properly come), Tathāgatha (the one thus gone), and naturally Buddha itself (the one who’s woke up). The Buddha most frequently referred to himself as Tathāgatha.
He’s typically, however not often, referred to within the scriptures as Sakyamunī, “the sage of the Sakyans.” That is one other epithet, and doubtless a late one. (The later Mahāyāna usually refers to Gotama as Śākyamuni Buddha with the intention to distinguish him from different, mythic, Buddhas.)
First title, final title? It’s not so easy
We are likely to learn our modern assumptions about names again into historic instances. So we assume that folks must have a primary title (or private title) and a final title (or household title). Maybe they’ve a number of center names as properly. We assume that the household title is shared by everybody of their father’s direct lineage. So my dad’s final title is Stephen, my dad’s dad had that title, I inherited it, and also you’d anticipate my kids to inherit it in flip. You’d anticipate somebody to have just one household title. You wouldn’t anticipate the Stephen household to even be known as one thing else, like “MacTavish,” for instance.
However not everybody on this planet shares these naming conventions. There are locations the place folks solely have one title. In Ethiopia, the custom is that your final title is your father’s first title. My daughter’s first passport — an Ethiopian one — had her final title as Bodhipaksa, which is my first title.
In Iceland, your final title is your father’s first title with the added suffix -son or -dottir, relying in your gender. In Iceland I’d be Bodhipaksa Iansson, and my sister would have been Fiona Iansdottir. Though my sister and I have been members of the identical household, we’d have totally different final names.
The “first title adopted by a household title” mannequin just isn’t common in fashionable instances, and we actually can’t apply it to historic India. We’ve got to let-go of some assumptions earlier than we contemplate the Buddha’s names.
The Buddha’s final names
That the Buddha was known as Gotama (Gautama in Sanskrit) just isn’t problematic. The scriptures bear witness to the truth that he was known as Gotama, as a result of folks usually name him that. They confer with him as “the ascetic Gotama” (samaṇa gotama) for instance.
Gotama wasn’t precisely a household title in the way in which we perceive it, although. It was a tribal, or gotra title.
Now, the Buddhist scholar Alexander Wynne tries to make a case for Gotama being the Buddha’s private title fairly than a gotra (tribal) title. Gotama was a Vedic household title, and the Buddha’s tribe weren’t followers of the Vedas, and so, he reckons, the Buddha’s household couldn’t have been known as Gotama.
However then within the scriptures you’ve gotten issues like this, the place the Buddha is instructing the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu, his house city:
The Buddha spent a lot of the night time educating, encouraging, firing up, and galvanizing the Sakyans with a Dhamma discuss. Then he dismissed them, saying, “The night time is getting late, Gotamas. Please go at your comfort.”
The Buddha refers to his fellow Sakyans as “Gotamas,” which implies that Gotama is not getting used as a private title. It’s a gotra (clan) title. The Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, can be referred to as Gotama. And his aunt and foster mom is named Gotami, the female type of the title.
And at one level the Buddha says outright, “Gotama is my clan.”
What’s in a (clan) title?
A clan title just isn’t essentially what we’d consider as a household title. You’ll discover that the Buddha, within the quote above, calls the Sakyans “Gotamas.” Sakya was a rustic. Beneath mainstream European naming conventions it’s not attainable for even a small nation’s residents to all have the identical household title. It might be that totally different households in Sakya had totally different family-identifying names, however I’m not conscious of any proof for that within the scriptures, and I doubt that was the case. They have been all Gotamas.
As for Wynne’s argument that Gotama is a Vedic title — the title of a sage — I’ve addressed that elsewhere. Sakka turned a topic state of the dominion of Kosala. It’s possible that as a part of having their rulers legitimized, the Sakyans went by some type of ceremony the place they have been aligned with the legendary Rishi Gautama. This Gautama would have been akin to a “patron saint.” The Sakyans didn’t in any other case observe Vedic traditions, however non-Vedic peoples taking up clan names based mostly on Vedic figures was not unusual.
Kids of the Solar
The Sakyans weren’t simply Gotamas. They’d a number of, overlapping names.
Earlier than his enlightenment the Buddha met King Bimbisāra of Maghada, who was interested in his origins. The Buddha-to-be defined,
Their clan [gotta] is known as for the Solar [Ādicca],
they’re Sakyans by delivery.
I’ve gone forth from that household
So the Gotamas, or Sakyans, additionally glided by the title Ādicca. This was one other epithet.
Typically the Buddha referred to himself as “Ādiccabandhu.” It means “kinsman of the solar” or “of the Photo voltaic race.” Given the quote above, it’s possible that each one Sakyans have been known as Ādiccabandhu.
So his household appears to have been each Ādicca(bandhu) and Gotama. Maybe Ādicca, or Ādiccabandhu, was their authentic title and Gotama the one they got as a part of their legitimization by the Kosalans. Possibly Sakya was their authentic title, with Gotama being assigned by a king and Ādicca being an epithet. We simply don’t know.
Rays of Gentle
It will get worse! The Gotama clan was also called “Aṅgīrasa.” This title actually means “Rays of Gentle From the Limbs” but it surely refers back to the religious descendants of the legendary Rishi (sage) Aṅgīras.
Some folks have urged Aṅgīrasa as the primary title of the Buddha. It actually sounds prefer it while you learn a sutta like this:
I’m the son of the Buddha, the incomparable Aṅgīrasa, the unaffected,
the bearer of the insufferable.
You, Sakya, are my father’s father;
Gotama, you might be my grandfather within the Dhamma.
A word within the Entry to Perception translation of this discourse refers to an historic commentarial suggestion that Aṅgīrasa was one of many Buddha’s private names. However Aṅgīrasa is the title for a department of the Gotama clan lineage. So it’s one other “final title.”
We’re not used to the thought of getting a number of final names. It’s not unknown, although. I stated earlier that you just wouldn’t anticipate a Stephen to even be a MacTavish, however within the Scottish clan system the Stephens are MacTavishes. Whereas my relations wouldn’t signal “MacTavish” on the dotted line, should you requested considered one of them what clan they belonged to the right reply could be “MacTavish.” Possibly that’s much like how the Sakyan clan system labored. I don’t assume anybody is aware of.
Anyway, we have now a number of overlapping clan names (or “final names”) for the Buddha, however no clear first title.
No names please, we’re enlightened
The Buddha in truth discouraged even using his gotra title, Gotama, not less than should you have been considered one of his followers and addressing him personally.
When, shortly after his awakening, he sought out his 5 former companions, they got here to him and addressed him as “pal (āvuso) Gotama.” His response was:
Don’t deal with the Tathāgata by title and as “pal.” The Tathāgata, associates, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
“Tathāgata” was how the Buddha usually referred to himself. It’s one other epithet, though seemingly a self-chosen one.
Presumably this restriction on using “Gotama” solely utilized to the Buddha’s followers, since respectful Brahmins tended to name him “worthy Gotama” (bho Gotama) or “grasp Gotama” (bhavaṁ Gotama). He didn’t appear to have an issue with that.
Sakyan exceptionalism
On the subject of names, the Sakyans, as in so many different areas, had totally different customs from the Brahmanical cultures to their south.
The Brahmins that got here to speak to the Buddha appear to have referred to themselves by their clan names. However the Sakyans referred to themselves and one another primarily by what appear to be private names. Suddhodana, Ananda, Nanda, Suppabuddha, Anuruddha, and Devadatta: these are all relations of the Buddha, and these look like their private names.
So it’s vital that we don’t know the Buddha’s personal private title. It might be that referring to the enlightened one by a private title may need been a taboo.
It is perhaps much like how photographs of the Buddha weren’t made throughout his lifetime, or for a very long time thereafter.
After a couple of hundred years of cultural change, folks (the Greeks, initially) began creating Buddha photographs. Equally, after a time frame folks began to provide the Buddha a primary title: however they didn’t know what it initially was, so that they tended use epithets to fill within the clean.
What’s in a reputation, anyway?
Our bureaucratic tradition, the place births and deaths are formally registered, insists that folks should have one official title. In follow, although, “Alexander MacTavish” would possibly use his full title, or be known as “Alex,” “Lex,” “Al,” “Huge Al,” “Sandy,” “Xander,” and many others. In fact, should you requested him what his first title “actually” was, he’d reply that it was “Alexander” — his legally registered title. However they didn’t have such issues in historic India. Within the system the place there’s no such factor as an official first names, does the query “What’s the Buddha’s actual first title?” really imply something?
Think about the Buddha’s spouse. Most individuals who’ve studied Buddhism will confidently say she was known as Yasodharā, however in doing that they’re making a option to disregard the opposite names that she may need used or been recognized by. Rāhulamātā (Rāhula’s mom) is the commonest title by which she’s recognized within the scriptures. Bhaddakaccānā can be discovered a few instances within the scriptures. Gopi is most constantly utilized in different early sources. The editor of the Dictionary of Pali Correct Names posited that her title may need been “Bimbā.” Yasodharā solely seems after her demise.
Throughout her life Yasodharā, to name her that for now, may need been recognized to totally different folks at totally different instances by some, all, or none of these names. The Buddha too may need had a number of names. He may need had one private title as a toddler, after which one other title as an grownup. He may need had totally different private names in several contexts — together with his spouse, mother and father, associates, and so forth. He may need had a secret, ritual title. We simply don’t know. His private title, or names, has been misplaced.
A sacred silence
We have to be taught to be comfy with not realizing what the Buddha was known as. Our minds are likely to wish to fill within the gaps, however on this case we don’t also have a sound foundation for guessing. Our minds wish to match the Buddha’s names into our fashionable, bureaucratically influenced naming conventions, however we’d be sensible to withstand that impulse.
If it helps, maybe we may contemplate that if it wasn’t essential for early Buddhists to document the Buddha’s title, it shouldn’t be essential to us both. Within the psychological area the place his private title would go, we may maybe let a sacred silence take root.
When folks first began carving or portray scenes from the Buddha’s life, they left an area the place the Buddha could be. For instance, you’d see the tree the place he was meditating, however not him. You’d see his footprint, however not his foot.
Students name this “the aniconic Buddha.” The absence of the Buddha was a sacred area of awe and reverence. The place the place the Buddha’s title must be may very well be like that, too.
An moral concern
Ethically, we should always not state one thing to be the case until we’re sure it was. We actually shouldn’t say that the Buddha’s first title was Siddhattha or Siddhartha. We will truthfully inform folks he he was known as Gotama. Individuals did name him that. We will say that Gotama was one thing like a final title.
We will nonetheless name the Buddha “Siddhārtha” or “Siddhattha,” after all, however we must also clarify that that is one thing akin to a title, and never a primary title as we perceive that time period at the moment.
By acknowledging this, we talk to folks: It’s okay to not know issues. We don’t must make issues up. We don’t have to create the phantasm of realizing. When there may be purpose to be unsure, we should always chorus from false certainties.
When one thing is unknown, it’s trustworthy to say that it’s unknown. And the Buddha’s private title is unknown.
Wildmind is a Group-Supported Meditation Initiative. Click on right here to seek out out concerning the many advantages of being a sponsor.
That is considered one of a collection of articles the place I’ve been mythbusting issues folks “know” concerning the Buddha. These myths embody the supposed information that he was a prince, that he was born a Hindu, and that he left house after seeing “4 sights.”
Such factoids are current in virtually each guide guide concerning the Buddha and Buddhism. But if we glance with a bit historic consciousness at our earliest sources — the scriptures — we see that none of these items is true.
On this article I wish to mythbust one thing else that everybody thinks they know, which is the Buddha’s private title having been “Siddhartha” (Siddhattha in Pāli). The proof we have now signifies that it wasn’t.
The quick story is that the title Siddhartha isn’t discovered within the early scriptures, and is a reputation given to the Buddha after his demise. For those who’re within the lengthy story, proceed studying…
Siddhartha was an epithet, not a reputation
Siddhartha (Siddhattha in Pali) means “one who has achieved (siddha) his goals (attha).”
In not one of the scriptural discourses — the suttas — is the Buddha known as Siddhartha. This title is just present in a couple of very late texts, such because the Apadāna, the Buddhavaṁsa, and the Milindapañha, which post-date the Buddha’s demise.
Slightly than being a private title, Siddhattha is an epithet, which is “an adjective or phrase expressing a top quality or attribute considered attribute of the individual or factor talked about.”
Individuals utilized many epithets to the Buddha, together with Sugata (the one properly come), Tathāgatha (the one thus gone), and naturally Buddha itself (the one who’s woke up). The Buddha most frequently referred to himself as Tathāgatha.
He’s typically, however not often, referred to within the scriptures as Sakyamunī, “the sage of the Sakyans.” That is one other epithet, and doubtless a late one. (The later Mahāyāna usually refers to Gotama as Śākyamuni Buddha with the intention to distinguish him from different, mythic, Buddhas.)
First title, final title? It’s not so easy
We are likely to learn our modern assumptions about names again into historic instances. So we assume that folks must have a primary title (or private title) and a final title (or household title). Maybe they’ve a number of center names as properly. We assume that the household title is shared by everybody of their father’s direct lineage. So my dad’s final title is Stephen, my dad’s dad had that title, I inherited it, and also you’d anticipate my kids to inherit it in flip. You’d anticipate somebody to have just one household title. You wouldn’t anticipate the Stephen household to even be known as one thing else, like “MacTavish,” for instance.
However not everybody on this planet shares these naming conventions. There are locations the place folks solely have one title. In Ethiopia, the custom is that your final title is your father’s first title. My daughter’s first passport — an Ethiopian one — had her final title as Bodhipaksa, which is my first title.
In Iceland, your final title is your father’s first title with the added suffix -son or -dottir, relying in your gender. In Iceland I’d be Bodhipaksa Iansson, and my sister would have been Fiona Iansdottir. Though my sister and I have been members of the identical household, we’d have totally different final names.
The “first title adopted by a household title” mannequin just isn’t common in fashionable instances, and we actually can’t apply it to historic India. We’ve got to let-go of some assumptions earlier than we contemplate the Buddha’s names.
The Buddha’s final names
That the Buddha was known as Gotama (Gautama in Sanskrit) just isn’t problematic. The scriptures bear witness to the truth that he was known as Gotama, as a result of folks usually name him that. They confer with him as “the ascetic Gotama” (samaṇa gotama) for instance.
Gotama wasn’t precisely a household title in the way in which we perceive it, although. It was a tribal, or gotra title.
Now, the Buddhist scholar Alexander Wynne tries to make a case for Gotama being the Buddha’s private title fairly than a gotra (tribal) title. Gotama was a Vedic household title, and the Buddha’s tribe weren’t followers of the Vedas, and so, he reckons, the Buddha’s household couldn’t have been known as Gotama.
However then within the scriptures you’ve gotten issues like this, the place the Buddha is instructing the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu, his house city:
The Buddha spent a lot of the night time educating, encouraging, firing up, and galvanizing the Sakyans with a Dhamma discuss. Then he dismissed them, saying, “The night time is getting late, Gotamas. Please go at your comfort.”
The Buddha refers to his fellow Sakyans as “Gotamas,” which implies that Gotama is not getting used as a private title. It’s a gotra (clan) title. The Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, can be referred to as Gotama. And his aunt and foster mom is named Gotami, the female type of the title.
And at one level the Buddha says outright, “Gotama is my clan.”
What’s in a (clan) title?
A clan title just isn’t essentially what we’d consider as a household title. You’ll discover that the Buddha, within the quote above, calls the Sakyans “Gotamas.” Sakya was a rustic. Beneath mainstream European naming conventions it’s not attainable for even a small nation’s residents to all have the identical household title. It might be that totally different households in Sakya had totally different family-identifying names, however I’m not conscious of any proof for that within the scriptures, and I doubt that was the case. They have been all Gotamas.
As for Wynne’s argument that Gotama is a Vedic title — the title of a sage — I’ve addressed that elsewhere. Sakka turned a topic state of the dominion of Kosala. It’s possible that as a part of having their rulers legitimized, the Sakyans went by some type of ceremony the place they have been aligned with the legendary Rishi Gautama. This Gautama would have been akin to a “patron saint.” The Sakyans didn’t in any other case observe Vedic traditions, however non-Vedic peoples taking up clan names based mostly on Vedic figures was not unusual.
Kids of the Solar
The Sakyans weren’t simply Gotamas. They’d a number of, overlapping names.
Earlier than his enlightenment the Buddha met King Bimbisāra of Maghada, who was interested in his origins. The Buddha-to-be defined,
Their clan [gotta] is known as for the Solar [Ādicca],
they’re Sakyans by delivery.
I’ve gone forth from that household
So the Gotamas, or Sakyans, additionally glided by the title Ādicca. This was one other epithet.
Typically the Buddha referred to himself as “Ādiccabandhu.” It means “kinsman of the solar” or “of the Photo voltaic race.” Given the quote above, it’s possible that each one Sakyans have been known as Ādiccabandhu.
So his household appears to have been each Ādicca(bandhu) and Gotama. Maybe Ādicca, or Ādiccabandhu, was their authentic title and Gotama the one they got as a part of their legitimization by the Kosalans. Possibly Sakya was their authentic title, with Gotama being assigned by a king and Ādicca being an epithet. We simply don’t know.
Rays of Gentle
It will get worse! The Gotama clan was also called “Aṅgīrasa.” This title actually means “Rays of Gentle From the Limbs” but it surely refers back to the religious descendants of the legendary Rishi (sage) Aṅgīras.
Some folks have urged Aṅgīrasa as the primary title of the Buddha. It actually sounds prefer it while you learn a sutta like this:
I’m the son of the Buddha, the incomparable Aṅgīrasa, the unaffected,
the bearer of the insufferable.
You, Sakya, are my father’s father;
Gotama, you might be my grandfather within the Dhamma.
A word within the Entry to Perception translation of this discourse refers to an historic commentarial suggestion that Aṅgīrasa was one of many Buddha’s private names. However Aṅgīrasa is the title for a department of the Gotama clan lineage. So it’s one other “final title.”
We’re not used to the thought of getting a number of final names. It’s not unknown, although. I stated earlier that you just wouldn’t anticipate a Stephen to even be a MacTavish, however within the Scottish clan system the Stephens are MacTavishes. Whereas my relations wouldn’t signal “MacTavish” on the dotted line, should you requested considered one of them what clan they belonged to the right reply could be “MacTavish.” Possibly that’s much like how the Sakyan clan system labored. I don’t assume anybody is aware of.
Anyway, we have now a number of overlapping clan names (or “final names”) for the Buddha, however no clear first title.
No names please, we’re enlightened
The Buddha in truth discouraged even using his gotra title, Gotama, not less than should you have been considered one of his followers and addressing him personally.
When, shortly after his awakening, he sought out his 5 former companions, they got here to him and addressed him as “pal (āvuso) Gotama.” His response was:
Don’t deal with the Tathāgata by title and as “pal.” The Tathāgata, associates, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
“Tathāgata” was how the Buddha usually referred to himself. It’s one other epithet, though seemingly a self-chosen one.
Presumably this restriction on using “Gotama” solely utilized to the Buddha’s followers, since respectful Brahmins tended to name him “worthy Gotama” (bho Gotama) or “grasp Gotama” (bhavaṁ Gotama). He didn’t appear to have an issue with that.
Sakyan exceptionalism
On the subject of names, the Sakyans, as in so many different areas, had totally different customs from the Brahmanical cultures to their south.
The Brahmins that got here to speak to the Buddha appear to have referred to themselves by their clan names. However the Sakyans referred to themselves and one another primarily by what appear to be private names. Suddhodana, Ananda, Nanda, Suppabuddha, Anuruddha, and Devadatta: these are all relations of the Buddha, and these look like their private names.
So it’s vital that we don’t know the Buddha’s personal private title. It might be that referring to the enlightened one by a private title may need been a taboo.
It is perhaps much like how photographs of the Buddha weren’t made throughout his lifetime, or for a very long time thereafter.
After a couple of hundred years of cultural change, folks (the Greeks, initially) began creating Buddha photographs. Equally, after a time frame folks began to provide the Buddha a primary title: however they didn’t know what it initially was, so that they tended use epithets to fill within the clean.
What’s in a reputation, anyway?
Our bureaucratic tradition, the place births and deaths are formally registered, insists that folks should have one official title. In follow, although, “Alexander MacTavish” would possibly use his full title, or be known as “Alex,” “Lex,” “Al,” “Huge Al,” “Sandy,” “Xander,” and many others. In fact, should you requested him what his first title “actually” was, he’d reply that it was “Alexander” — his legally registered title. However they didn’t have such issues in historic India. Within the system the place there’s no such factor as an official first names, does the query “What’s the Buddha’s actual first title?” really imply something?
Think about the Buddha’s spouse. Most individuals who’ve studied Buddhism will confidently say she was known as Yasodharā, however in doing that they’re making a option to disregard the opposite names that she may need used or been recognized by. Rāhulamātā (Rāhula’s mom) is the commonest title by which she’s recognized within the scriptures. Bhaddakaccānā can be discovered a few instances within the scriptures. Gopi is most constantly utilized in different early sources. The editor of the Dictionary of Pali Correct Names posited that her title may need been “Bimbā.” Yasodharā solely seems after her demise.
Throughout her life Yasodharā, to name her that for now, may need been recognized to totally different folks at totally different instances by some, all, or none of these names. The Buddha too may need had a number of names. He may need had one private title as a toddler, after which one other title as an grownup. He may need had totally different private names in several contexts — together with his spouse, mother and father, associates, and so forth. He may need had a secret, ritual title. We simply don’t know. His private title, or names, has been misplaced.
A sacred silence
We have to be taught to be comfy with not realizing what the Buddha was known as. Our minds are likely to wish to fill within the gaps, however on this case we don’t also have a sound foundation for guessing. Our minds wish to match the Buddha’s names into our fashionable, bureaucratically influenced naming conventions, however we’d be sensible to withstand that impulse.
If it helps, maybe we may contemplate that if it wasn’t essential for early Buddhists to document the Buddha’s title, it shouldn’t be essential to us both. Within the psychological area the place his private title would go, we may maybe let a sacred silence take root.
When folks first began carving or portray scenes from the Buddha’s life, they left an area the place the Buddha could be. For instance, you’d see the tree the place he was meditating, however not him. You’d see his footprint, however not his foot.
Students name this “the aniconic Buddha.” The absence of the Buddha was a sacred area of awe and reverence. The place the place the Buddha’s title must be may very well be like that, too.
An moral concern
Ethically, we should always not state one thing to be the case until we’re sure it was. We actually shouldn’t say that the Buddha’s first title was Siddhattha or Siddhartha. We will truthfully inform folks he he was known as Gotama. Individuals did name him that. We will say that Gotama was one thing like a final title.
We will nonetheless name the Buddha “Siddhārtha” or “Siddhattha,” after all, however we must also clarify that that is one thing akin to a title, and never a primary title as we perceive that time period at the moment.
By acknowledging this, we talk to folks: It’s okay to not know issues. We don’t must make issues up. We don’t have to create the phantasm of realizing. When there may be purpose to be unsure, we should always chorus from false certainties.
When one thing is unknown, it’s trustworthy to say that it’s unknown. And the Buddha’s private title is unknown.
Wildmind is a Group-Supported Meditation Initiative. Click on right here to seek out out concerning the many advantages of being a sponsor.
